The Ecclesial Celebration of Reconciliation: Glorifying God by Signifying his Mercy to the Church

 

The Ecclesial Celebration of Reconciliation

Glorifying God by Signifying his Mercy to the Church 

• Introduction

• Cultural Considerations of the Sacrament of Reconciliation

• Assessing the Current Culture of Confession

• Reconciliation and Active Participation

• Pre-existent Grace and Sacramental Engagement

• Glorifying God Through Reconciliation: Three Modes of Signifying Divine Mercy 

• Reconciliation and Parallel Signification: Signifying Christ and the Penitent

• The Social Nature of Reconciliation: Signifying The Church and the Penitent

• Divine Drama: Signifying Christ and the Church

• Conclusion

Introduction

When my youngest child made their first confession in advance of first communion, they went to the priest and sat down to begin.  After the ritual introductions my child hesitated a bit and the priest said, “do you want to tell your sins or keep them in your heart?”  Given the choice, what eight year old would take option A? When our child told us I turned to my spouse and declared the sacrament invalid.  Was this priest playing fast and loose with the sacrament that requires us to “confess every sin”?  Was it right for my child to skip the humiliating burden of confessing each sin individually?  Isn't this child required to go to confession before receiving the blessed sacrament?  The theologically correct answers to these questions may surprise the reader.  There is a lament, often voiced, concerning a catechetical crisis in the Church.  It turns out that the sacrament of confession is not immune to this crisis.  But those who make this lament are often the very ones in the darkest pits of ignorance.  Given the nature of the sacrament of reconciliation and the teachings behind its execution, it turns out that my child’s experience was appropriate enough for her situation and valid according to the teaching of the Church.  It turns out that an experience of shame or dread is not necessary for the sacrament.  In fact, they are to be discouraged. 

The purpose of this treatise is to explore modes that help one understand the sacrament of reconciliation as an ecclesial and communal celebration of forgiveness rather than simply a mechanism for individual forgiveness.

The first half of this treatise will cover the damaging developments which lead to the present cultural context of the sacrament and then discuss the process and skills of active participation in the sacrament of reconciliation by the penitent.  The second half of the treatise will be a reframing of reconciliation away from a simple mechanism of forgiveness for the individual to a sign of forgiveness witnessed by the Church.  The treatise will explore three modes of signification between the ordained priest and the penitent, “Christ and the Penitent '', “The Church and the Penitent '', and “Christ and the Church”.  The second half, especially through the third mode of signification, will make an effort to understand the sacrament of reconciliation as a ritual that effects not only the individual penitent but also the Church as a whole.    

Cultural Considerations of the Sacrament of Reconciliation

We noted in the former treatise The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity,  “The theological conservative would tout frequent Confession and minimal reception of the Eucharist.  Meanwhile, the theological progressive tends to promote frequent communion and confession only for mortal sin (under a rare interpretation). Catholic cultures tend to sway to one or the other position.  As the frequency of reception of the Eucharist arose last century, the frequency of Confession declined.”  This pendulum swing brings up the question, is there urgency in that decline?  Do we need to be worried?  If so then we might spend the beginning of our exploration of the sacrament of reconciliation considering the causes of the decline.  Any cultural phenomenon necessarily involves many sociological factors.  It may be that the decline in participation in the ritual can be traced to a damaging ethos that has developed around the sacrament.  This damage is caused by a caricatured view of the sacrament that heightens certain aspects and deemphasizes others to the point where the latter fundamental aspects of the sacrament end up having no bearing on the sacramental consciousness of the ritual.  This caricature is what causes a toxic view of the sacrament and subsequently the decline in participation.

Assessing the Current Culture of Confession

Confession is often analogically viewed as a mechanism that affects a mechanism.  Firstly, our soul is seen as a mechanism that acquires volumes of grace and/or sin. The ritual of confession is understood as a separate cooperative mechanism of cleansing, much like a degreasing pressure washer that scrubs off build-up and allows gears to run smoothly.  OR if the soul is likened to liquid, the sacrament is a filter that allows water to pass through and traps and removes grease leaving only pure water.  These analogies are not unhelpful, but they can also cause difficulties when over relied upon.  Certain aspects of the sacrament are hyper emphasized, such as the damage of personal sin and the point of removal.  What is less considered in these analogies is the lived reality of forgiveness and reconciliation.  Sin is seen as an object, not a relationship.  Consequently, reconciliation is seen as a “statis” as opposed to a relationship.  These torpes have been overplayed for more than a few generations and as a result people are left with a commercial approach to both sin and the sacrament of confession.  

The extreme of this commercial approach dangerously intensifies two more untrue perceptions concerning the prescriptions of confession.  First, it is a common belief that one must go to confession every time that one has sinned for that sin to be forgiven.  Second, it is somehow seen as a sacrilege to receive the eucharist if one did not go to confession first.  It is not our aim to say that these practices are “bad”.  It is good to go to confession as often as one feels so inclined.  It is acceptable to go to confession before every celebration of the Eucharist. But these practices are not generally necessary.  There is neither dogma nor doctrine concerning “temporal regularity of attendance” of the sacrament of confession.  The only proposed requirement as such at the dogmatic level is the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent, which makes it known that one must avail oneself of the sacrament of concession in the case of mortal sin and that it is not unlawful to do so for venial sin.  This means that it is incorrect for someone to say confession does not absolve venial sin or that one “cannot” attend it for venial sin.  But it is only necessary for mortal sin and not necessary for venial sin.  As the reader knows, mortal sin has very exact criteria that set a high bar, requiring grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent.  In short, the sinner must be in full conscious rebellion against God.  They must know and believe this about themselves for it to be a truly mortal sin.  If such a case is rare, then necessary attendance is rare.  If such a case is frequent, then regular attendance needs to be frequent.  But that will vary from person to person given the subjective nature of two of the criteria.  The hCurch does also have binding law that requires the faithful to attend reconciliation once a year, but this is not revealed truth, simply ecclesial management as a safeguard.

These extra-added assumptions of requirements harken to the problem Eve faces in the garden when confronting the snake.  The snake asked Eve, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”  The observant reader will notice that God did not say that they could not touch the tree.  Indeed it would seem that Adam would need to touch the tree in order to cultivate it, which was his job.  But by the manner of his question, “any of the trees”, the snake had put in Eve’s mind that God is a tyrant.  Though she was able to walk back the snake's image of a tyrannical God quite a bit, she still managed to double the restrictions God laid upon humanity. And that extra requirement may well prevent Adam from completely fulfilling his purpose to care for the garden.  We must be very careful in both how we permit and how we restrict when considering spiritual regulation.  Unfounded and litigious assumptions foster unhealthy guilt and the sacrament of confession has attached to is a host of unhealthy associations.  

It bears noting that there is such a thing as healthy guilt.  When one has knowingly done wrong and wants to make amends, the feeling of remorse is a necessary motivator for this sacrament.  But an untrue feeling of inadequacy that prevents one from approaching the Eucharist is not elevated piety.  Rather it is demonic dissolution that prevents the full practice of the faith.  There is an entire genre of social media post where people ask if “XYZ” activity is a mortal sin, presumably because they did it or are considering doing it and want to receive the eucharist.  But, the simple fact is, if you have to ask, it is not a mortal sin because you do not have full knowledge.  So, if you did that action and are asking to clarify for the future, good for you for seeking to form your conscience (though social media is not an authoritative source).  But if you have been refraining from reception until you find out, that is bad, because if you did not know then it is not mortal.  

Though mortal sin does entail an objective element (grave matter) it is definitively a subjective (consciously rebellious) relationship with God.  If one is in doubt about or does not understand, one is not in full rebellion.  At this point, the graces of the Eucharist are essential for healing.  Not only that, but the ritual of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself will offer the forgiveness needed regarding venial sin.  In all sins where the matter is not grave OR there is not full knowledge OR complete consent, the penitential rite successfully prepares one for reception of the Eucharist.  After the prayer is prayed by the congregation, the rubric specifically states, “The absolution by the priest follows”.  All guilt is immediately washed away and one is left to exercise penance as one sees fit to repair the damage of the sin.  On top of that, reception of the eucharist itself forgives venial sin.  The forgiving reality in the mass, along with the heavily subjective nature of mortal sin, should mitigate any “bean counter” mentality of confession.  It also demonstrates the needless anxiety of the “better safe than sorry” attitude used to pressure people toward confession before every reception of the eucharist.  The “safety” promised by such an attitude is illusory when coupled with the “sorry”, which implies a surprise to find out that you were in a state of mortal sin the whole time.  If one did not know, then it was not mortal sin, and if it was not mortal sin, then the penitential rite and reception are effective.

The caricatured culture of anxiety and fear that surrounds this sacrament at present is doing harm.  The discourse of sin surrounding the ritual tends to whip the penitent into an emotional frenzy of horror, and dread, of the sin attached to one’s soul forming a balance of debt. This debt of spiritual danger pushes penitents to the brink of despair.  Then the ritual is sold as the only release from this emotive tumult because the ritual is the only effective means of canceling the debt of sin so you can start over again.  Sin and forgiveness are framed as commerce rather than gift.  This is a decidedly unChristian view of God’s mercy.  The narrative of this emotive chain of events is so powerful that the feeling of emotive release upon absolution becomes an experiential self fulfilling prophecy for those who engage.

  

At the same time, many do not engage because the perception is that the forgiveness offered by the sacrament is somehow conditional on being humiliated (in the popular, not the theological sense).  There is an intense stress on “every sin must be numerated and nothing (implying no detail) is to be left out”.  Add to that that the ordained priest is often portrayed as an investigator who must probe and extract every action that conjures shame before absolution can be given, or the sacrament will not be effective. One is left with the feeling that, if one were not willing to go through that humiliation, the one must not be truly sorry for their sin, which is required for absolution. 

This entire culture relies on a manipulation of deep seated psychological realities, not the flow of grace and the will to participate with it.  The first major harm is those who succumb to fear and wind up not going to confession.  A second harm is those who avoid confession because they are in no way subject to the emotive spiral of the current context, thus the “release” mechanism is rendering it ineffective.  One may not be “subject to the emotive spiral” for one of two reasons.  First, they never were catholic, thus they can use the psycho-dynamics as evidence of the unhealthy nature of catholicism.  This is powerfully damaging because, given the caricatured presentation of the sacrament, these dangerous dynamics actually exist.  The authority of the Church and a full understanding of her sacraments is thereby hindered.  Second, are the people who find alternative methods for the endorphins offered by the psycho-dynamic of guilt and release offered in this caricature.  These are Catholics who were participating in this spirituality, but either due to the attack of the non-believers, or the clever presentation of someone “selling something”, they were able to find an equivalent to the process, probably one that offers less shame.  If the response is, “there is no equivalent to the sacrament!” that is true, but sacraments are not emotive psycho-dynamics, and the equivalent sought is.  This is why understanding and experience of the sacrament of reconciliation as simply a phenomenological psycho-dynamic is so dangerous.  If confession means simply “you feel so relieved when you're done!” then it turns out there are many equivalents that can make you feel that way.

The caricatured approach also lends itself to abuse as was demonstrated by a recent trend on social media concerning, in particular, the abuse women face due to this off kilter penitential culture.  That brief trend resulted in the article Sex and Confession: 5 helpful guidelines. The guidance in the article helps one realize how powerful the current assumptions are.  The way that the article dispels the assumptions is to point out the obvious.  The article basically reminds the penitent that they have a serious part to play in how the ritual works and are not a docile agents, but active participants in the ritual.  Sin is a relational reality, an offense against God’s honor, thus how the penitent relates to God, their knowledge, their use of will, their intention is every bit as important as their actions.  There are alternate psycho-spiritual dynamics involved in this sacrament that gets downplayed when it is treated as a mechanism based on  “commercial” calculations.  While it is true that every mortal sin must be confessed, it is not necessary to recount every detail, as if to relive the trauma of the sinful action on the soul. It is advised to recount every venial sin (CCC 1458) but it is not required, because there are other effective means of making amend regarding venial sins. 

But there is a cultural current that refuses to allow these demonstrable teachings of the Church to be considered.  Even the way paragraph 1458 is worded is extremely hesitant.  Again, if there is a crisis in catechesis, the dictum “confess every sin” as it is commonly taken, is a large part of it.  Concerning the anecdote of my child’s first confession in the introduction, the child was eight years old.  Though well enough within the age of reason, it is doubtful the child has full knowledge of anything nor do they have full mastery of their will.  Given that the child’s situation was doubtlessly venial, and (knowing my child) the contrition was real, being present was a confession of sin enough. We must reframe how we perceive this sacrament if willful cooperation with grace is to be maximized.  First, we will analyze the process itself and then move on to mitigating the caricature of confession by a more balanced approach to ritual.    

Reconciliation and Active Participation

It is odd that confession draws so much ire in our culture, from both protestants and secular nonbelievers as well.  They seem to be triggered by a situation where someone goes into a room alone with another person, and tells them all their deepest darkest discomforts, even if it is, so they believe, to help them.  The power differential and the easy ability to manipulate due to the nature of the information shared seems ripe for exploitation.  But our description works just as well for therapy as it does for confession.  There seems to be a human need to find an objective observer to process trauma and seek help, whether the trauma is psychological or spiritual.  The existence of a secular parallel structure that follows similar methodologies is quite fascinating.  But the dynamic of each is different.  The basic crux of therapy, at least “talk therapy” is to facilitate a space where the client can learn to monologue as if it were a dialogue.  That is to say, talk therapy helps the skill of introspection.  The therapist does not usually “give advice” so much as ask poignant questions, teaching the client to do likewise. The end result of therapy is a skill, to abide in the world as a res cogito. If the goal is attained, termination of the relationship follows.

Reconciliation is a far more complex affair. It involves not only the whole person (beyond simple cognitive machinations) but how they relate to God, their fellow humans, and their environment.  Now, it could be said that therapy does the same, but the center of therapy is the client. The focus is on their adjustment to society.  But the metrics for that adjustment are largely set by the client.  The therapeutic relationship may demand action to change the world outside the relationship, but it does so through the lens of the client, to meet their needs, not some sense of universal justice or order.  The Catechism show’s how there is a bifold nature of healing in the sacrament. “The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.” In this quote, three elements are equally interplaying agents, the penitent, God, and the Church.  Each has objective parts to play in the relationship dynamic of the ritual.  This “point of view” issue is only one of the major differences between therapy and the sacrament of reconciliation, but as a cosmological concern, it does offer a calibration for all of the other differences.

The opening gambit of the Sacrament of confession is heavy on the subjective.  As we already noted, since sin is a relational reality, the culpability does rely on one’s own personal knowledge and exercise of will.  Thus the first two “steps” of the sacrament involve an assessment of one’s relationship with God and neighbor.  There is a twofold assessment, one intuitive and emotive, the other analytic.  The intuitive / emotive assessment is not so much a “step” as it is an awareness.  In order for the sacrament of confession to function effectively, the penitent must “feel” something. “Guilt” would be a classical way of putting it. The relationship between God and humans is unique in that all dysfunction rests on the side of the human, as opposed to a human to human relationship where the source of dysfunction is undoubtedly diversified.  To label the feeling “guilt” connotatively narrows the experience and almost necessarily couples it with both fear and dread.  The fear and dread here are not tantamount to “awe”, a gift of the Spirit.  Rather they imply a source that is malicious or cruel.  If the point of confession is to better the relationship between God and the penitent, a hyper focus on, and even requirement to feel this negativity may be a poor starting place.  Not to mention, what if someone did not feel dread or fear, must they then worry that they are not truly penitent? 

Often the feeling is labeled, “sorrow”.  Popularly this carries all the same connotations as guilt.  They appear synonymous, but sorrow is not limited to the juridical.  The term sorrow allows for a wider application.  To frame the emotive state more positively, it is a longing for a correct relationship.  This does not negate how one has contributed to the dysfunction of the relationship, but one can have forward looking sorrow that recognizes the beauty of healing without a negatively acting fear or dread.  This can relate to the next step, the examen, because one can analytically know one is caused damage to their relationship with God and wish for a better situation, even if they don’t fully understand it.  That “wish” is sorrow, as a manifestation of Christan hope, and hope is a virtue where dread and fear are not.   It is not only possible for sorrow to fully manifest without dread, it is preferable and spiritually advanced.  As the reader may know, and as we will discuss, imperfect contrition is the variety that involves fear and dread.  Perfect contrition is motivated by love not dread.

The first part of confession does primarily regard the past, not the future.  Thus an awareness of one’s part to play in the dysfunction is necessary.  Therefore, added to the necessity of sorrow is the examination of conscience, which is the analytical balance of the emotive sorrow.  The examination is a necessary, yet highly undervalued aspect of reconciliation.  The devaluation springs from an understanding of reconciliation as strictly “confession”, which places the priest as a central actor in a mechanism of forgiveness.  To elevate the examination elevates the important investment and action by the penitent.  An example of the ill effect was brought to my attention recently.  I was at a wedding reception and the bride was talking with me about her interaction with the priest just before the ceremony.  He asked her if she would like to “take advantage of the sacrament of confession”.  As we were talking I remembered that this same exact thing happened to me less than an hour before walking down the aisle.  I am sure this offer was done out of charity in each case, but it reveals so much of the dysfunction in how we approach the sacrament of reconciliation.

The offer probably extends from a place that desires more people to go to confession.  The trick is to catch someone off guard in a place where it is hard to say no.  What kind of jerk doesn’t want a “fresh start” at the beginning of their marriage?   It also is a strategy that honestly believes that if people just went to confession, they would experience the grace of God and want to go more.  But the ask manipulates the very shame and guilt that initially drives people away in the first place.  Then, one so manipulated discovers that they only needed to go to confession for mortal sin, AND the high bar set for such sin, the undeniable manipulation to get them to participate will reflect extremely poorly on future participation.  Such manipulation reinforces all the unnecessary and bassless associations with the sacrament.

 Moreover and more importantly, a “quick performance” is not a full and active experience of the sacrament.  Here we see where clericalism and a mechanistic view of sacraments that poor catechesis facilitates has its most damaging effect.  The priest most likely doesn't know if the penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and therefore whether the sacrament is even necessary.  If the wedding has a Mass attached all venial sins will be forgiven and a fresh start is obtained regardless.  Another important factor is that the penitent is in no psycho-spiritual place, nor do they have the time to perform a thorough examination of conscience.  The examination, well done, is absolutely critical for several reasons.  First, litigiously, it is “required”.  But more importantly, it is the prayerful exercise that puts the penitent in a disposition to receive and celebrate the sacrament.  It is also one of several key points of “active participation” for the penitent.  When one lines up the penitent's ritual roles, examination, confession, and acts of penitence, with the ordained priests’, pronounce absolution, then it becomes obvious the key player in the ritual sacrament is the penitent.  Therefore, if ambushed with an offer of the sacrament, one should seriously consider the appropriate response.  If one feels unprepared, a perfectly acceptable response is to say, “Thank you for the offer Father, but I don’t feel I am in a place or have the time to adequately examine my conscience.” 

The examination is a conscious accounting of sins one has committed.  For this to be successful, it helps to have a basic understanding of sin and culpability.  The nature and mechanics of conscience were discussed in the treatise Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium.  To surmise, one is born with an understanding that there is a difference between good and evil, but not the ability to properly distinguish.  One life goal is to form and follow one’s conscience.  That is to say, one must identify good sources by which to learn the true distinction between good and evil acts.  Then one must employ one’s will to act according to the advice of one’s conscience.  One must also understand that this is a lifelong process, and one must be open to continual education by the proper sources.  This openness marks a sincere conscience.  Sincerity assumes that the content of one’s conscience is, probably often, erroneous.  That is to say, one believes that good actions are bad or bad actions are good.  Sincerity of conscience requires one to follow one’s conscience in real time, even though its formation is not perfect.

The Catholic idea of conscience as it is laid out in section I, article six of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and as was discussed in the treatise Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium it is an exploration of the complexity of sin as a relationship rather than a set of actions.  Learning what actions are evil and what actions are good is the process of formation of conscience, but those actions do not become sin until they are understood as evil and willfully engaged.  Though article 1458 of the Catechism does suggest that frequent confession helps us form conscience, it is paramount to distinguish between the examination of conscience and the formation of conscience.  The examination is not a process of learning new information concerning sin.  It is a process of reflecting on what one already knew, or at least believed (in the case of an erroneous conscience), and experiencing sorrow for where one acted against their love of God.  Sin is far more attached to this rebellion than it is to the objective evil of an action.  Thus sincerity and formation of conscience is meant to align even action with culpability, but an examination of conscience is meant to assess actions according to one’s conscience as it stands, including where it is erroneous.  It is the entire process of the sacrament that 1458 suggests may help with formation.  That would include possible discussion with the priest, or at least frequent examination, which may lead to more frequent formation outside fo the context of the ritual.

The only “material” one needs for an examination of conscience is one’s memory, and one’s conscience as it operated during the time remembered.  These two qualifications take into account the fact that one’s conscience may have formed since an offending act, but the culpability would be calibrated according to conscience as formed during the act. The exercise of the examen is to identify where one went against their understanding of the good and the extent to which will was employed in that action.  Identification of willful rebellion against one’s relationship with God in order to confess is the goal.  

Often it is advised to supplement one’s examination with materials that help jog one’s memory.  They are usually based on the ten commandments and offer a litany of objective evils in the form of questions, “have you done XYZ?”  These materials can be extremely helpful to call to mind one’s past actions for analysis.  The danger of such materials is twofold.  The objective litigious nature of such materials, even if well written, often leads one to examine good and evil actions versus sinful and virtuous.  In looking for sin, one is seeking culpable actions, actions where one at least in some way knowingly and willfully acts.  A long list of actions may contain items one was not aware were evil, or one may not believe are evil.  As was noted in Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium, “a person “knows” something assumes two things, the thing they know is true and they believe it.  But for the conservative, if one is exposed to a moral factoid in any way, they “know” it.  It is as if it were raining outside and I walked into a basement room and told you “it’s raining outside”, and by that telling, asserted that you know it.  But if you don’t believe me because you don’t trust me or some other evidence you have points elsewhere you don’t “know” it.”  

Thus, if one runs across materials in an examen aid that one is unfamiliar with, one should ignore them at present.  Perhaps one could come back to the point later and find good materials for formation, but an examination of conscience is not the same thing as formation of conscience.  This is, in fact, the second problem these aids present.  Given the wealth of information they present, probably far beyond the current formation of the patient, they tend to change the process of examination, and even the process of the sacrament itself into formation rather than what it truly is, an experience of forgiveness of the past actions and a reception of grace to do better in the future.  Obviously, that cooperation with grace will most certainly involve continuing formation of conscience.  But to confess to evils one does not perceive as evil is not a confession of an offense one committed against God. 

If a child unknowingly performs damaging actions, even if they had been told to yet they do not understand not to, the just parent does not hold these as “offensive”, this is simply a teaching moment.  The venue of the sacrament of confession is not primarily pedagogical.  As my spouse always says, “don’t teach someone to swim while they are drowning”.  To extend the analogy, let’s say the child did an action that was offensive, for example willfully antagonizing a sibling, knowing that it was wrong.  As a parent, this is enraging and offensive, especially because the child is mature enough and controlled enough to do the right thing.  If that child honestly comes to the parent truly sorry and is seeking to make the situation better, this is the worst time to point out other things they do wrong (unknowingly) and demand apologies for those actions.  That doesn't mean there is not a proper time for pedagogy.  But in this situation, the pedagogy could hinder acceptance of the grace of healing, which is the primary goal. 

There is one last auxiliary danger to such materials.  Since two criteria are subjective, one cannot make a “list of mortal sins”.  One can only make a list of evil actions, or words with the connotations of intention and circumstances that assume sin (knowledge and use will), but not necessarily mortal sin.  It is to be remembered that confession is only required for mortal sin, thus, such materials necessarily promote one of two misunderstandings.  If the penitent is aware that one only needs to confess mortal sin, then the lists promote a distorted view of what mortal sin is.  More likely, such lists by their makeup bolster the mistaken belief that “confess every sin” means every mortal and venial sin.       

The extremely personal nature of sin and justification, as opposed to the objective nature of evil and good, makes the examination of conscience a critical part of the sacrament.  It is how one prepares what to say and how to frame it as they approach the ordained priest in the sacrament.  Given our fallen nature, the examination must be painfully personally honest concerning the content of one’s conscience and the exercise of one’s will.  It is not a published list.  It is introspective honesty that will shine light on one's sin and expose it to consciousness for confession.  This is the first maneuver of the penitent's active participation.  The examination sets the groundwork for all other participation in that it develops into what and how one confesses which presumably will bear on how one is assigned a penance by the confessor.

Once one has in mind an accounting of their actual personal sins one can successfully proceed to the act of confession.  The power of the penitent in this sacrament is the ability to successfully sculpt a narrative of sin for themself in order to express sorrow before the ordained priest.  This leads to what is probably the most damaging criticism of confession to the modern Catholic, “Why do I have to confess to a priest? Why can’t I just take my sins to God?”  This is so damaging because Catholics are taught to say the act of contrition as children and believe that it is a way to obtain forgiveness for sin.  But then one is introduced to confession as a better, more effective or more powerful way to obtain forgiveness.  It leaves this question, was the act of contrition or simply going to God for forgiveness effective?  The answer is yes when sincerely said for venial sin. The Council of Trent clearly states, “For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumption declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies.”  The passage makes clear that this does not negate the benefit of “confession of every sin” even venial ones.  But the fact that one can achieve forgiveness apart from the ritual seems to cause a lot of confusion.  “If that’s the case why do the ritual?”  The first response is to remember the Church law that Confession is required for those in a state of mortal sin in order to receive the eucharist.  But as we shall see, even this strategy may be inadequate as a response.  At the very least it makes those who push for frequent confession, in turn, push for a misunderstanding of when it is necessary.  Many people already think it is required even for venial sin. Also, the existence of alternate means of forgiveness for venial sin often urges those in favor of frequent confession to have an expansive view of mortal sin. This strategy, focusing on the litigious requirements for the sacrament, in turn, approaches mortal sin litigiously and not relationally.  The litigious view of mortal sin reduces it to objective acts (grave matter) and minimizes or outright negates the psycho-spiritual aspects (knowledge and will).  Once this maneuver is complete, there is the inevitable expansion of the list of grave matter in the name of expanding the frequency of confession.  Invariably this leads the average catholic to be confused as to why this or that would be “mortal” (when, in fact, it, is simply grave matter … maybe). It creates an image of the sacrament in the popular mind that becomes ridiculous. 

“Why”; that is the question.  Why do we have to go to a priest?  In the previous scenario, there is no good reason.  Only a series of what become more and more ridiculous assertions that are meant to motivate one out of fear and dread.  But the fear and dread are not gospel values and the inflationary nature of these have driven many to view the sacrament as unhelpful, ridiculous, or even damaging.  When trying to address this issue, there are far better and more truthful tactics, but since the culture relies so much on fear and dread, we can open with a meditation that uses these and move on in the next section to more profitable motivations for the spiritually advanced.

Let’s return to seeking forgiveness and our proverbial evening act of contrition.  We lay our heads down, call to mind our sins, and say our prayer; sure of God’s mercy and content in the peace of God’s forgiveness.  We have taken our sins straight to God and there were no tactics of fear or dread necessary.  Now consider a church with two confessionals.  A presider is explaining the layout of the penance service.  “In confessional #1 is our own Fr. Bob and low and behold, in confessional #2, behind that door, for one night and one night only, the Lord your God has deigned to descend and hear confessions directly.”  The reader should take the time to honestly imagine themselves in this very scenario.  Imagine it were true, God was behind the little curtain.  How? What form?  … Who knows? You have to go behind the curtain to find out.  Truly imagine this was the case … Now do you feel fear or dread?  If one is honest, Fr. Bob may begin to look like the easier option.  

According to the standard understanding, one may complain “if I go to a priest they will judge me!  That’s not right!”  That complaint should be qualified as “they may judge me unjustly” in that the ordained priest may not correctly gauge culpability, how much you truly knew or were limited in your will.  They may be too harsh.  That is the fear.  But with God behind curtain #2 there is no doubt that one will be judged, not only judged but judged correctly.  If one has a habit of “sculpting the narrative” during their examination of conscience with a host of justifications (and we often do) these justifications will no longer be in any way effective.  The Lord your God knows.  The Lord your God will be able to mitigate all one’s self delusions layered over the truth of the Examen.  At least with Fr. Bob we have a chance of continuing our self induced farce.

If we truly believed God were behind the curtain, there would doubtless be a little dread.  So why no dread when we are comfortable in our own bed “taking our sins to God directly”?  The answer lies in the power of sacraments as signs, physical manifestations of divine mysteries that affect what they communicate.  The reason we feel dread about going to an ordained priest and not taking our sins straight to God right before we go to sleep is that when we go to an ordained priest, we know someone is listening.  To be honest, there is an unconscious assumption that God is in his high heaven, sustaining the universe, hearing all prayers, and handling all business, and as we slide in with our seemingly paltry sins (or what must be by comparison to all else that is surely going on in the world) God really doesn't have time to take notice of us.  Perhaps we think no one is truly listening to us.  But the ordained priest’s body sitting in the confessional reminds us that someone is listening, not only to us in comparison with all the “big sinners” but listening to us “as us” and weighing our sin personally and how we are particularly culpable.  As was noted in the treatise The Onesiman Interface, 

By their ordination, they become vessels by which Christ, through the sacraments, conveys grace.  During a sacramental ritual, the priest stands in persona christi not just in a dramatic or theatrical way, but in truth by his ordination.  The human priest himself is inconsequential in this position, but his physical body is a necessary as part of the outward sign of the sacramental ritual.                  

   

And again in the treatise The Manifold Priesthood of the Catholic Church,

The ordained body becomes a sacramental ritual instrument used in the rites to convey grace, the grace of Christ’s presence in physical human form.  Since humans are sensorial creatures this sacramental interplay is extremely necessary.  Our faith is not simply rational, it involves the whole of our being, including our need to experience Jesus as a human.  Effective ordination allows this by the authority of Christ.

Our meditation demonstrates how important this sacramental presence of Christ is.  Our self delusion allows us to pretend that we can slide under the radar with God.  The intimate nature of the corporal relationship in private confession disallows this delusion.  The ordained priest’s signification of Christ truly allows us to experience Jesus’ presence if we cooperate with the grace.  This is why participation in the sacrament is helpful even for venial sins that can be forgiven otherwise.  If we judge ourselves too casual in our approach to God’s forgiveness, we may benefit from being reminded that someone is listening.  The tragedy is that, far too often, our own pride gets in the way of this cooperation because we focus on the ordained priest as “Fr. Bob” and not on the grace of his sacral role in the ritual.  We let the fear and dread of the ordained priest dictate our relationship with God.

Such fear and dread are amplified by the dictum, “confess every sin”.  A litigious view of the sacrament coupled with an equivocation of personal sin and evil action is a perfect recipe for hyper-anxiety.  The penitent is driven to scrupulosity wondering if they forgot to mention some action that they did that may have been a sin.  Or, even more absurdly, they did not note an action that was a “sin” that they did not know was a sin, i.e. an evil action they did not know was evil, but they somehow bear guilt and since they didn’t say it, they are not forgiven.  Sacraments reveal the hidden God by visible signs, but such litigious attitudes do not reveal a loving God.  Rather they reveal a tyrant.  A helpful strategy to remedy such anxiety is to remember the love of a parent for a small child who sincerely seeks forgiveness.  Since we are commanded to call God “Abba”, daddy, that relationship is helpful to drive the character of the sacrament.

Another helpful remedy is to remember that private confession deals with personal sin.  Since culpability is determined by a series of personal factors; knowledge, will, intentions, and circumstances, it is up to the penitent to determine their sins during the examination of conscience.  To simply say “I have sinned” actually covers the requirements equally as much as a detailed list of every conceivable action with accompanying commentary on the knowledge thereof and volitional caliber attached.  (For my child at eight years old, at first confession, the priest deemed their physical presence as confession enough of sin.) What needs to happen probably lies somewhere in between for most penitents.  It is in no way incumbent on the ordained priest to “discover actions” that he feels are sins.  In the document Rediscovering the Rite of Penance the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments reminds us,

The Rite of Penance also speaks of the confessor as Judge and Physician when it says, “In order to fulfill his ministry properly and faithfully the confessor should understand the disorders of souls and apply the appropriate remedies to them. He should fulfill his office of judge wisely” (RP 10). Later on it underlines that “the confessor fulfills a paternal function: he reveals the heart of the Father and shows the image of Christ the Good Shepherd” (RP 10). The confessor is a witness to the Mercy of God towards the repentant sinner

This role helps the penitent mitigate self delusion.  It implies both psychological prowess in general as well as a well formed penitent/confessor relationship.  The better that relationship the more probing the ordained priest can get in order to help the penitent by illumination of conscience.  The “judgment” of the priest primarily lies in how to apply penance that remedies the damage of sin, not to discover or ponder the nature of the sins committed in the past.  At most, the well related priest may help the penitent meditate on the fullness of knowledge or completeness of consent.  But as we noted earlier, if it is “full and complete”, the penitent is certain.  The only role needed for the priest is to point out deficiencies in knowledge or consent, thereby demoting mortal to venial sin.  

A well formed relationship between priest and penitent takes a history where the priest has gathered spiritual data in order to form such a relationship with the penitent. Conversely, if a penitent were to go to an ordained priest they don’t know, as is often the case, that priest has only general knowledge of concupiscence to rely on and reference.  What the ordained priest lacks is a good grasp of the longitudinal manifestation of the individual’s concupiscent dispositions and how these interface with the content of the individual’s conscience.  How those dispositions classically manifest and the circumstances that inflame them are key information for aiding the penitent in the task of confession.  Such information can give insight into quality of willfulness, which in turn relates to actual culpability. General knowledge of concupiscences is helpful theory, but since personal sin subjectively accrues culpability, with only that part of the picture the uninformed and unfamiliar ordained priest would do well to take a posture of listening rather than promulgating.  As the Catechism states, “The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ. He should have a proven knowledge of Christian behavior, experience of human affairs, respect and sensitivity toward the one who has fallen; he must love the truth, be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and lead the penitent with patience toward healing and full maturity.” With that in mind, the penitent would be wise to cultivate a relationship with a confessor they see as having a wide grasp of the problems of concupiscence and a skilled ability to apply that theory to the circumstances of their own life.   This way the priest can help them draw out facts of their actions to their full conclusions and better sculpt a virtuous life. The illumination of conscience helps the penitent fully grasp the nature of their situation and better allows them to work with the graces imparted by the sacrament.

That said, the matrix for the priests to develop advice or probe the penitent is the subjective experience of the penitent, given that it is their psycho-spiritual make-up coupled with the circumstances involved in their actions that accrue culpability.  Both ordained priests and penitents should always remember this.  The primary actor in this ritual is the penitent, not the ordained priest.  Illumination of conscience is different than formation of conscience and the priest should not take this time to seek to form the penitent’s conscience.  There are so many other proper venues for this.  Worse yet it is incorrect for a priest to take this venue to “inform” the penitent that actions they are doing are a sin.  In fact, there are no proper venues for this, because to sin implies culpability, to be culpable implies knowledge, and the need to be informed implies a lack of knowledge.  There are only venues to inform people that their actions are evil, and thus form their conscience.  To seek to instill feelings of guilt evoked by fear and dread in the midst of a sacrament that celebrates God’s healing forgiveness is a demonic inversion of the purpose of the ritual.

The primary job of the ordained priest is to be the sign of Christ’s presence and then signify God’s forgiveness by means of absolution.  After the penitent has confessed, the ordained priest offers absolution saying,

God, the Father of mercies,

through the death and the resurrection of his Son

has reconciled the world to himself

and sent the Holy Spirit among us

for the forgiveness of sins;

 through the ministry of the Church 

may God give you pardon and peace,

and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

An “absolution” is both a granting and a declaration.  That is to say, the priest grants forgiveness, as it is in his power, but he also declares it, because the forgiveness properly comes from God. This is the nature of corporeal signification.  The body itself communicates the mystery “symbolically”, yet at the same time, as a sacramental sign, it makes the mystery present.    For us to hear this with our ears is an extremely important human experience.  Hearing these words in human language is unlikely to happen when one “takes one’s sin straight to God.”  The sacrament provides a context where we can hear both God and the community come together and offer us audible forgiveness.  This proclamation is a “gift” offered from the “Father of mercies”.  It was not earned in any way by the penitent. What the feeling of sorrow, the thorough examination of conscience, and the willful confession do is signify the acceptance of that offer.     

After absolution, the priest assigns a penance.  Again, at this point absolution has already declared that forgiveness is granted.  Obviously, performing the penance does not earn forgiveness either. It is a sign of repentance and a resolve to make a better life.  It is also a chance to begin working off the “temporal punishment” for sin.  Temporal punishment, as opposed to eternal punishment, is finite amount of punishment merited by the sin.  The teaching is; though the guilt is cleansed, there is still a need to work off the debt.  Again we see the language of the commercial approach to confession.  As if God needs us to fulfill a debt left by our dishonor.  God does not need anything from us.  There are more theologically correct ways to formulate this idea.  

Sin causes alienation, separation from God and neighbor, and trauma, habituation toward sin.  God has extended healing grace to bridge the alienation, but we are temporal creatures, and, short of a miracle, we heal in time.  It takes us time to fully accept God’s offer of forgiveness and recover from sin's traumatic effects.  The sacrament starts with reflection on the past, it transitions to the present moment, where one confesses one’s sins.  Then absolution makes present God’s merciful forgiveness.  Now with the penance, the penitent is future oriented.  It is time to carry healing forward into the future.  Since this recovery is cooperation with grace, it takes both psycho-spiritual and physical participation because grace seeks to heal the whole person.  The penance is the beginning of that healing process. The reader will quickly deduce that the most common penances, short prayers, small acts of charity, even small acts of restorative justice will not do the work needed to fully prepare one to accept God’s healing of alienation or fully rehabituate the penitent and heal the trauma sin.  The remainder can be worked out in fear and trembling by the penitent through voluntary corporeal and spiritual works, (particularly through well performed indulgences).  Or, ultimately, the justified will work off the trauma in purgatory.

To conceive of the penance as our work, in an anthro-centric way, takes away the image of God as a divine bean counter who needs some sort of satisfaction.  God is complete in his perfections.  Satisfaction implies a lack of something.  The lack is not in God, it is in us.  It is we who need to be altered, not God.  Thus it is more proper theology to move away from debt language and toward language that focuses the penance on as our effort at reconciliation.

Transitioning from the image of a wrathful God who needs a debt filled to a merciful seeking to bridge alienation and heal a broken humanity is the shift from God’s need to our need.  Such a shift will help heal the dread often experienced toward confession.  This dread is concerning if its object is God.  The sacraments are meant to bring us into communion with the loving God, not instill dread of God, or paint a picture of reunion reminiscent of an abused partner returning to an abuser.  A reorientation from dread to sorrow and a focus on healing rather than debt just begins to turn “confession” into “reconciliation”.  With such a shift in the works, we can begin to see this sacrament as a celebration rather than an instigator of dread and subsequent relief.  “To celebrate” is the verb appropriate to a sacrament. But considering the generationally poor framing of this sacrament, more work is needed to truly reach a point where we could call reconciliation a celebration.

Pre-existent Grace and Sacramental Engagement

Celebrations imply something great and joyous has happened, and people are expressing their reciprocal joy at the event.  Each of the sacraments is a celebration of events that have already happened.  But since they are sacred rituals, they take place in the matrix of sacred time, which binds all time into one.  The sacramental effect is re-presentation through sacred time. Since the divine mysteries are eternal (outside of time), in as much as the sacrament accesses these mysteries the sacred ritual transcends the flow of time and space and presents the mystery to the participant.  From this presentation, the sign becomes an effective means of grace already present that we then cooperate with and in turn becomes signs of ourselves.  As the Catechism states,

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

That the grace effected is at the same time already present is the celebration we meet in the sacraments. Examples of this can be found in the Acts of the Apostles, for example in Cornelius the centurion.  Before he ever encounters a Christain, an angel of God appears before him and boldly states, “, “Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God.”  More pertinent, the gentiles in Cornelius’ company receive the spirit prior to receiving the sacrament from the Apostle,

While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?”

Sacraments are not simply standard operating procedures for mechanically receiving grace, they are also expressions of gratitude for God’s eternal mysteries which have already granted grace. There is a back and forth which begins with God’s own initiative.  Though initiation into the Church is celebrated with Baptism by water, presumably the adult initiate chooses to be baptized.  This choice assumes grace already given and cooperated with through preexistence baptism by desire (a response to God’s call).  In a fledgling way, this baptism has already effectively integrated the initiate into the Body of Christ.  The ritual of water glorifies God by signifying that desire and effects the public manifestation of initiation into the mystical body, the Church.  It is both the initiation AND a celebration of the grace to seek God, the baptism by desire. As the effective sign of their initiation as priest, prophet, and king.  Ritual Baptism effects the matrices of signification in which the Christian will be immersed for the rest of their life.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life.  During this ritual, the heavenly temple which exists in eternity is accessed. The mystery of God’s perfect love, which is eternal and beyond time, is manifest through the paschal mystery in the first century. The sacrifice of Calvary is swept up into the heavenly temple and by this the sacrifice of the mass presents the same eternal mystery in each instance, thus time is transcended. Time is halted/expanded via participation in eternity and we gain access to a situation 2 millennia ago which includes the entire paschal mystery as it unfolds in first century Palestine, the passion and resurrection all together. 

We can also take the example of marriage.  The first marriage happens in Genesis when the first parents are made together in God’s image and likeness.  God is eternal love and the first humans were a glorifying and significant expression of that love.  Marriage celebrates an already existing love between a man and a woman.  That love is able to exist because the Father loved us first.  The wedding ritual is a celebration of each of these two existing loves and at the same time effects and an ontological bond between the husband and wife, “What God has put together, let no man put asunder.”

With the sacrament of reconciliation, the prayer of absolution notes that Christ has already reconciled God and Humanity with his one eternal sacrifice in the heavenly temple.  The deed is done, effective across the complete breadth of time and space. But “in time”, we still use the knowledge and will to rebel against God and manifest offense.  When we resolve to go to confession, with perfect contrition, we are already forgiven, even in the case of a mortal sin.  There is nothing controversial about this teaching.  It is standard Catholic doctrine. Article 1452 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “When it [contrition] arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.”  The celebration of reconciliation is not reserved for after the ritual, or even for the “latter part”.  The entire ritual is a celebration of God’s existant forgiveness and mercy.

When the pandemic hit, circumstances showed how poorly catechesis has been concerning this aspect of reconciliation.  Because of all of the difficulties we have been discussing, numbers of attendance in confession has been small for quite some time.  Often the people who do attend have the commercial mentality of a wrathful God, and are driven to the sacrament by fear and the need for release from that fear.  During the pandemic lockdowns the ability to attend confession was eliminated.  The internet exploded with the panic of scrupulosity unchecked.  Priests began reminding people of Article 1452, and the ingrained culture of litigiousness and ignorance of actual church teaching on the sacraments came to the forefront.  People were calling this idea that forgiveness precedes the sacrament “heresy” or a “change in doctrine”, when it is clearly neither.  It is a poorly disseminated teaching because to catechise the populace on this fact would mean to change the narrative on what was happening in the sacrament of confession.

Since forgiveness is already present we seem to be back to a point of divine hazing.  If the perfect contrition “works”, why do we need to humiliate ourselves by confessing in this ritual?  It is here that the term “Celebration” is a useful reframe. The present forgiveness is what is being celebrated.  Confession does not have to be a painful process, in fact, it could be argued that, as a celebration, it should not be painful.  The ritual is a celebration of forgiveness granted due to perfect contrition.  It would be “required” for mortal sin because that particular forgiveness is such a powerful example of God’s love that is deserves to be celebrated.

That said, it remains scary and difficult to go to confession.  It doesn’t feel like a celebration.  So can we beg off this celebration ritual and just “celebrate privately”?  Well, though the sacraments are celebrations of grace received, they are also “Effective signs”, they convey what they communicate.  Also, because they are signs, sacraments are not private affairs. Each one has a communal orientation.     

A good understanding of sacramental signs is the path to a better understanding of how to celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation.  Without this understanding, the sacrament will remain locked in the commercial framework of a wrathful God and a required humiliation for forgiveness. The key to understanding how to approach reconciliation as a celebration glorifying God is a developed sense of human bodies as significant sacramental matter.  With a sense of this sacramental ritual as a public sign of grace, we can begin to build a framework for understanding reconciliation as a true celebration.

     

Glorifying God Through Reconciliation: Three Modes of Signifying Divine Mercy 

In the first half of this treatise, we analyzed the damaging developments which lead to the present cultural context of the sacrament of confession. We went on to discuss the process and skills of active participation in the sacrament of reconciliation by the penitent.  The second half of the treatise will be a reframing of reconciliation away from a simple mechanism of forgiveness for the individual to a sign of forgiveness for the witness of the Church.  The treatise will explore three modes of signification between the ordained priest and the penitent, “Christ and the Penitent '', “The Church and the Penitent '', and “Christ and the Church''.  This second half, especially through the third mode of signification, will make an effort to understand the sacrament of reconciliation as a ritual that effects not only the individual penitent, but also the Church as a whole.    

Reconciliation and Parallel Signification: Signifying Christ and the Penitent

The treatise The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity had a similar goal as this treatise.  The sacraments are not solitary engagements.  Each of them has private aspects and each has public aspects.  Each convey’s grace to the individual regarding their relationship to God.  But each has a significant aspect for the Church community.  The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity we discussed the sacrament of the sick, which seems like a personal encounter with death and described how this seeming solitary sacrament has powerful social signification and functions attached to the graces that it confers.  Our aim for the rest of this treatise is to apply the same model of ecclesial function for understanding the sacraments to confession.

An important foundation for understanding the ecclesial function of these seeming solitary sacraments is remembering the sacral significance of baptized human bodies.  We discussed the basic precepts in The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity,  

Sacramental ritual has three aspects, matter (the physical stuff of the ritual), form (the words to be spoken), and ritual action (the matter of the ritual must be manipulated).  Often there is a requirement of confluential sacral matter which will come into play for the ritual. One example of this is the oil we discussed in the last part.  But in every case, the minimal sacral matter will be at least two human bodies, often an ordained priest and at least one baptismal priest.  These human bodies and their physical relationship will have a key role in signifying the mystery of the sacrament through parallel signification.   Parallel Signification refers to corporeal signification as presented by two people, where the relationship, physical or psychospiritual, affects the sacramental signification. No sacrament is done in isolation.  All of them take at least two people to perform.  The sacraments are a communal exercise and impact both the people maneuvering the ritual and those who are part of the community, yet not “directly” involved in the ritual action. 

Once that material is present, the sacramental matter is then “manipulated”.  That is, it is ritually maneuvered in a way that signifies divine mysteries according to the precepts of calculated ritual.  In these seven instances, the ritual comes with the added strength of the grace of a sacrament.  

In parallel signification the mutual operation of the physical bodies are signs that communicate the mystery and the effect it.  This signification can be private between the people, but it is also in some way necessarily public for the Church.  

The most familiar example of this liturgy.  In the Mass, the ordained and the baptismal priest both come together to engage in the public prayer of the Church.  The mass effects a sign of Christ’s effective sacrifice for us and God’s acceptance of our sacrifices as baptismal priests. The mass is the summative sign of the Church in the world.  This is the public aspect of signification.   In that sign, the participants receive a multitude of various graces, each individually, to continue their ministries.  

In the sacrament of Confession there are two requirements of matter.  The sacrament requires the body of an ordained priest and the body of a penitent.   The significations implied are emanated by the relationship of the two.  As the Council of Trent says, “the acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, confession and satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this sacrament.”  Though properly this indicates the ritual manipulation of the matter, the matter being the body of the penitent.  

The most commonly understood signification is the relationship between the ordained priest and the penitent signifying “Christ and the penitent”.  This signification hinges on the ordained priest’s sacramental role, standing in persona christi.  As we noted above, according to this belief, ordination conforms the priest’s in body a very specific way in the sacramental economy of the Church.  The priest’s body becomes a ritual object in the sacramental system.  The ordained body becomes a sign of Christ, symbolizing his presence and signifying it, making that presence real.  We discussed one way this happens personally above.  The eardrums of the priest remind us on an emotional level that someone is listening.  In the ritual there is no unconscious assumption that we can fly under the radar by bringing our sins straight to God.  Now we can begin to parse out the ways that the priest and the penitent work together to signify divine mysteries in the ritual.

    Thus far we have focused on the signification of the priest in the sacrament.  But sacraments require multiple people, often an ordained and a baptized priest, and each serves a function.  The ordained priest signifies the presence of Christ in the ritual, but to stop the signification there implies a ritual economy of invasion, that grace flows from above into places where it was not before through the ritual. This may be in part true, but as we have just noted, grace is also already present.  The ritual economy of invasion also minimizes a holistic view of the signification of divine mysteries.  It is not just the ordained priest who is signifying, it is also the penitent functioning as a baptized priest. Together they practice parallel signification.  This signification operates in three different modes during the sacrament; “Christ and the Penitent '', “The Church and the Penitent” and “Christ and the Church”. 

We can begin our analysis with ground already covered.  In the first signification is Christ and the penitent.  In this signification, the ordained stands in persona Christi as the penitent stands for the individual sinner.  One may say, “well, they ARE an individual sinner, what is so mysterious about that?”  such an observation assumes two things. ritual economy of invasion and a heavy reliance on private confession.  At this point, it is helpful to remember that private confession is a development of the sacrament that has pluses and minuses, but it is in no way necessary to the sacrament.  As the Catechism (1447) shows,

Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this "order of penitents" (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the "private" practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.

Most Catholics on hearing this history thank the lord for his mercy.  Few want to air out their dirty laundry in front of the entire parish.  Again, the auxiliary shame forcibly attached to this sacrament manifests in such a way that it becomes impossible to see it as a celebration.  Part of the responsibility for this warped view may lay in the privatization of the sacrament. It must be remembered that in their signification the penitent is showing or signifying penetince.  This signification is part of the mystery of how God and man are reconciled.  The demonstration is not a private matter and by demonstrating it, the penitent is showing something useful for the Church.  “But how do they ‘show’ it? They are in a private setting/”, ah, now we begin to see some problems.

At the very least, even in private confession, the penitent participant can still signify “the penitent” of the cosmic drama by their reception. Just going as an active member of the community.  Canon law requires a once a year participation and it is traditional to go to confession during the purple seasons.  In this we collectively signify our penitence because “everyone goes to confession, even the Pope!”  But that collective participation is not sacramental signification through ritual action between an ordained priest and a penitent.  It is a collective acknowledgment but the actual ritual is not experienced by the community.  This is a loss because, as was shown in The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity even the most seemingly solitary sacrament, anointing of the sick, signifies for the Church community and extends grace there as much as it extends it to the individual receiving it.  

The other way the penitent can be a sign to the community in the private form of the sacrament of reconciliation is through the penance.  In as much as this action is done in the community the penitent is signifying restitution or reform for those who witness their conversion.  This effect should not be downplayed.  But to frame it as such does paint an image of a barefoot person in sackcloth laying prostrate before an altar in some medieval cathedral.  Again, we see some sort of assumption of paralyzing shame rather than a person doing good works in the community in a maneuver of restorative justice.  But a well trained priest and a truly desirous penitent to engage in penitential acts that successfully celebrate and signify to the community the joy of reconciliation.  The Catechism offers a litany of ways that such penance can by engaged, including, alms, fasting, and prayer.  One can also practice penance by engaging in the simple struggle of Christian life, “Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one's brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one's cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance” The passage on penance wraps us with comments on how one can use the Eucharist, the scriptures and event the liturgical seasons as means of penance.  Each of these modes can be used to signify to the community the joy of true conversion.  

But with private confession, the ritual itself is not celebrated “with the community”.  One can see how the attachment of shame developed from public “grave sin” to private venial and grave sin.  When the sacrament was public, the grave sinner was a sign through the ritual of the mercy of God.  It may have been a shameful affair in the context, but the true point of the ritual is a communal celebration of the reformed sinner.  

The two most famous confession stories in the gospels are public affairs and the lessons concern the public reaction to forgiveness.  The first and most famous story is the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. This story follows the parables of the lost sheep and coin, where we realize that repentance is to be met with celebration.  Now we see this celebration in narrative form, when the son returns with what can only be described as “perfect contrition”, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”  The Father does no such thing.  He not only restores the child to his previous position, but he celebrates by slaughtering the fatted calf.  The story ends with the older son, who shows us that, though the hosts of heaven may rejoice over a repentant sinner, those here on earth may not be so inclined to celebrate.  The bitterness of the elder son is our lesson.  In his “anger” he does not even want to witness the celebration within the community.  He would rather go without joy than accept the merciful nature of the father.  This bitterness comes from a lack of beatitudes and a feeling of hubris in the form of self righteousness. ‘Look, all these years I served you, and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.”  It is doubtful that he “never” disobeyed.  This leads us to the second great story of forgiveness, which shares the same theme of mercy, yet also adds the importance of communal signification of the penitent.  

In John 8, Jesus cleverly maneuvers to spare the women caught in adultery by the harsh judgment of the community.  “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  Being the one person in the story who has the right to cast the first stone, he refrains as well after all the others depart and tells her to, “Go, and sin no more.”  This last line is the most touted by those who are (consciously or unconsciously) invested in the present culture of shame connected with confession.  When this story is framed as an example of mercy there is always the odd commenter who wishes to lay all the focus on this last line.  But the majority of the story shows us a place where sins are publicly aired in an environment of empathy which leads to mercy.  The narrative spends most of its time focusing us on how we are not to condemn others.  If Jesus’ new commandment is “to love others as I have loved you”, then how he neglects to condemn is vital data for us to witness. 

Moreover, Jesus draws out the communal benefit of signification during his exchange with the woman.  As we have said, in the sacrament of reconciliation, the penitent “signifies the penitent”, which seems repetitive and pointless, until, that is, the sacrament is displayed for the community.  Jesus cleverly demonstrates the benefit of a significant penitent.  It is through the woman that Jesus shows each person in the community their own failings as sinners and stirs sorrow for sin in each person in the audience.  Starting with the oldest, presumably the wisest who were able to connect the fact that they are sinners just as this woman is, every person leaves the scene and thereby leaves off condemnation.  Because of the sign of the penitent in their midst, the people of this story are able to make the leap that the elder brother of the prodigal son could not.  They are able to do this because the community witnessed Christ's mercy together and then, guided to the signification of the penitent by Christ,  the wise elders in turn guided the young to penitent virtue.      

Private confession has robbed the sacrament of this signification and the communal celebration.  This lack is the price of the ritual economy of invasion and an assumption of ritual shame.  How do we square this ecclesial function with the institution of private confession.  One way is a very particular interpretation of the next signification, the “The Church and the Penitent''.

The Social Nature of Reconciliation: Signifying The Church and the Penitent

  

Originally the public context of penitence was a stark reminder that we “have sinned against you and your church.”  As the public nature of confession was privatized, the priest, who in the ritual signified in persona Christi took on a more urgent signification, he also became  Christ as the mystical body of Christ, the Church.  In the ritual the priest signifies for the penitent both the person of christ and the community of the Church.  The penitent is, in effect, confessing to both of these realities through the priest.  The Catechism (1448) notes this,

Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God's action through the intervention of the Church. The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction, also prays for the sinner and does penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in ecclesial communion.

   

This focus on eccelsial communion reminds the reader that part of the purpose of confession is to reconcile the penitent to the Church.  As we say in the penitential right, “I have sinned against you and your church” reminding us that our sin is also against the Church and we need the forgiveness of the Church community.  This point is also driven home by the fact that non-catholics can take advantage of the sacrament of confession, but they cannot strictly receive absolution.  This is because absolution rectifies the penitent, not only to God, but also to the Church.  If the penitent has no intention of joining the Church, then there is no rectification happening.  This applies to both the unbaptized penitent and even those members of the Church who are baptized, but belong to varieties of christianty not in full communion with the Catholic church. Again,  If one’s intention is not to rectify with the Church, then the signifiation is lacking.  

Thus, we previously talked about the signification of Christ and the Penitent, we now each the second mode of dual signification once again, the penitent being the individual in need of reconciliation and the priest being the Church.  The priest in this role became more necessary as confession became privatized.  It is obvious via the ten commandments that we sin against both God and neighbor and both confession and reconciliation needs to happen for both aspects.  With private confession, the need of the priest to stand in for the Church happened first as a more inviting way to deal with mortal sin, but as it developed, it became a run around for dealing with venial sin as well.  A pure heart with acts of penitence can confess straight to one’s neighbor with the same effect as the sacrament.  But the advent of private confession allows the priest to take on the role of the Church and the individual.  It might be presumed that the penance would include a personal confession and plea for forgiveness to those members of the community one offends.  But this is not necessary and turns out to be rare in practice.  

Again, we see this privatization as a good thing because of the shame we feel regarding our sin.  This shame is a blocker for the true celebration of the sacrament, which celebrates forgiveness already received and God’s merciful response to sorrow for sin.  But what it possibly also does is stop the free flow of grace from the penitent to the community.  As an effective sign of penitence, the penitent, a baptismal priest, is a tool of healing on the community.  This instrumentation is not just by their works in their community, that is to say, their own effort.  It is by their corporeal significance through the parallel significance with the ordained priest.  Much like the image of Christ and the penitent on a personal level, the experience of having a “sign” of this during public confession for those who witness it, in a healthy community, would have a calming effect, where those observing, identifying with the penitent, or the Church in the case of the former, are assured through the sacrament of the flow of God’s grace.  The ritual is a sign for the observer.

One may respond, “the community is secondary, the forgiveness of the penitent is what the sacrament is about”.  Again we see a strict ritual economy of invasion exhibited in this ranking.  In truth, the fact that sacraments glorify God by their signification implies a public component is equally important.  Every sacrament has human bodies as necessary matter, which seems like common sense.  But a lesson can be drawn from the fact that they all require multiple bodies and most require multiple varieties of conformity to the body of Christ (ex: ordained and baptismal priests). This multiplicity is what allows for the dance of significations that we are covering now concerning reconciliation.  When one adds to that signification the element of glorification, the significance works beyond the two involved, and into the greater church, becoming a sign to those who observe the ritual.  This is in play for every sacrament.  Unfortunately, it is down played for the healing sacraments, but as was amply shown in The Ecclesial Function of Sacred Infirmity It need not be, and when signification operates appropriately great graces flow.  In that treatise, the discussion around John 9 revolved around the fact that Jesus states, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.”  This statement concerns physical illness.  Now in the sacrament of reconciliation, we have a spiritual ailment healed.  If physical healing can be a glorification, so much more is spiritual healing a glorification of God’s goodness and mercy.    

Again we can reflect on Luke 15, where Jesus shows the public nature of personal repentance, 

 

“What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance

 

   The reader will note that there is a personal relationship between the shepherd and the sheep, and a communal celebration after a successful recovery.  The communal celebration is the glorification of the child of God forgiven.  The sinner becomes a sign of God’s mercy.  This glorification is one of the elements of the eschaton not present in Eden.  It is only traversing the span of postlapsarian reality that this type of glorification can be present. 

The development of private confession has greatly pared down this particular glorification.  The sacrament of reconciliation is seen as an individual matter between the penitent and God, with the priest standing in for Christ.  But the priest does also function as a mediator of the Church, the Body of Christ.  In that, he not only conveys the forgiveness of the Church, but he is also the sole witness of the glorification of God’s mercy in any immediate sense.  There may be “joy in heaven” but the way that reconciliation has developed into a private exchange has, in many ways disallowed, that joy here on Earth.  Again, if the focus is not a “celebration” of the sacrament, but rather a cycle of shame inducing spirituality that leads to a ritual release, only to repeat, there is no room for celebration.  In this case, the move to private confession with the priest standing in for the Church seems natural, merciful, and good.  But, is it assumed that beatitude is so bereft in the Church that all of the faithful will react as the elder brother of the prodigal son?  If so, all the more reason for us to witness God’s mercy and be healed of our self righteous lust for condemnation.  The community is robbed of the grace of extending mercy and witnessing mercy extended. 

Once again, the sacraments aren’t simply individual experiences, they are also ecclesial experiences.  It’s a hard sell, but the Church must learn to shift from individual shame and release to the ecclesial celebration of an experience of mercy and forgiveness, an experience that both the penitent and the Church at large glorify and witness constantly.  If the penitent can see themselves as such a sign, then perhaps the cycle of shame and release along with the mistaken ritual economy of invasion can be broken.  To facilitate this it is possible that the Church can maneuver to its roots and consider a new presentation of the ancient mode of public confession.  The danger would be that it becomes a public ritual shaming, so serious catechesis needs to happen concerning the significant role of the penitent, the sacrament as a celebration of forgiveness already granted, as well as the interpretation of penitence and sorrow as hope rather than shame.  If the Church can make this shift, then the full breadth of signification can play out.  

Thus far we have developed two modes of signification, “The Penitent and Christ” and “The Penitent and The Church”.  Between these significations, the ordained priest maneuvers various significations by means of his ordained ability to stand in persona Christi, first Christ, then the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.  In the mode of private confession, the public glorification of this signification takes place mostly outside of the ritual proper.  It is only in the act of penance.  This is acceptable according to these modes of signification, but minimally so.  When we add the third mode of signification, “Christ and the Church '', where the baptismal priest signifies the Church while the ordained priest signifies Christ, we can begin to see how lacking simply conceiving of these two modes is for the Church as a whole.  We also see a signification that is impossible to effect in the private for of confession.

Divine Drama: Signifying Christ and the Church

In the sacrament of reconciliation, penitents is functioning as a baptismal priests as they signify their roles.  The first two modes of signification, the most commonly understood, signify “the penitent” and they are the penitent at the same time. It hardly seems worth pointing out that signification is happening when the context is private confession.  It seems that the visible sign is synonymous with the mystery signified in an absolute way.  The obvious tautological nature of theses is intensified by the method of private confession, There is no one to witness, anything.  The only thing one may think they are seeing is the “shame” of the penitent in their sin.  It is conceived of as an act of mercy to keep this private.  In short, “the penitent is the penitent” is hardly a divine mystery that needs to be signified if the only people witnessing it are the priest and the penitent.  These assumptions lack an understanding of signification.  In truth, all you think you are seeing is a person who sinned, but the divine mystery signified is the absolute relationship beyond the immediate context.  Should one witness the ritual signified before them, they would also witness themself as penitent, and even as a priest, implying their abilities to stand as alter Christus as a baptismal priest. 

If public confession for mortal sin were to be reinstated, it would shed light on how these significations are effective for the Church.  Just now, we didn’t say if you were to “observe” because public confession is no more a spectator sport than Liturgy.  Those present are witnessing not observing and in their witness, they too experience their own hopeful sorrow and their own forgiveness, just as the elders first followed by the youth with the woman caught in adultery.  It is this agapic empathy that draws us to “celebrate reconciliation” rather than “go to confession”.  And that celebration is best suited to a community, not an isolated experience.  

With public confession, the witness should not be there with the bloodlust of a depraved civilian attending a public execution.  The sacrament, properly executed, should be a celebration not a shame cycle.  What is being celebrated with joy in heaven, and signified here on Earth by the ritual is the hopeful sorrow for sin, and God’s active mercy.  With this understood, the focus of the witness is to take this sign onto themselves.  In the penitent the witness sees is theirself.  The sign of the penitent and Christ or the Church enlivens penitence in the gathered witnesses.  Even if they are not in a state of mortal sin, the grace they feel is meant to stir in them the desire to rectify their venial picadillos.  

Again, the presumption of one on one public confession is that it is a mortal sin.  There is already regular and effective public confession for venial sin in the penitential rite of the mass.  Public reconciliation for mortal sin probably assumes a rare interpretation of mortal sin that recognizes the full weight of the three categories, grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent.  With this expansive interpretation, it is not as if people would be going every time they missed mass on Sunday.  Such weakness hardly displays active rebellion against God, It is usually just an assumption that God really doesn’t care that much.  It would only be mortal sin if one were purposefully missing mass to spite God, this full knowledge and complete consent that, upon repentance, they would need to make a public confession.  I cannot imagine this would happen often.  It should also be remembered that upon repentance, with intent to reconcile through the sacrament, forgiveness is already attained.  This can be seen in the example given.  If one were missing mass with full knowledge and complete consent in order to spite God, how would they ever be in a position to seek confession, public or private.  Well, they would have to have experienced true repentance and with that experience, they would be forgiven, even for a mortal sin, if they intend to celebrate through the sacrament of reconciliation.  Now the penitent’s role is to be a sign of that forgiveness for others, who witness it and internalize both penitence and joy of God’s mercy.  

In public confession, the ritual is a divine drama of the sacred mystery of God’s forgiveness.  Again, this drama effects what it symbolizes, it is a sign.  Those who witness it are all the more assured of God’s mercy upon repentance and, even if they have not engaged in mortal sin, can all the more fully engage in the penitential rite of the mass.  If scandal has been caused by the penitent's actions, it is a chance for the Church to fully embrace the penitent and celebrate reconciliation.  This public aspect of the ritual has been lost, thus to speak of the significance of the “penitent as penitent” makes no sense.  Re-imagining the public ritual allows us to understand what is “signified” by the penitent here.  The ordained priest is Christ, in persona Christi, the penitent is the Church, the penitent is all of us.  A chief grace of the sacrament for the ecclesia is empathy, received, and cooperated with.  The crowd was able to empathize with the woman caught in adultery because they witnessed her sign of sorrow though their empathy.  Like all sacraments, grace flows from the ritual instance into life and dynamically effects the world as a whole.  In this case it is a healing sacrament and the effect is restorative.
When we say the penitent signifies “the Church”, it implies a twofold application.  First, each member of the ecclesia who witnesses the sacrament witness their own weakness, signified by the penitent, and witness God’s mercy signified by the ordained priest.  In the second application, the penitent signifies “the Church” in toto.  With this effect, the cosmic drama of Christ Sanctifying his Church is presented in ritual form.  It is for the Church that Hebrews says, “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.  So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help.”  The question is how do we access experience of this as humans who dwell in this realm.  In a church invested with a sacramental cosmology we believe we do so through “significant” ritual.  So, again, when Hebrews says, “Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But this one offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.”  We believe that this is true.  But we experience its truth in the signification of the sacrament.  With private confession, this is a personal experience.  With public confession this is personal to the priest and the penitent, but also, is signifying the eternal extension of mercy and forgiveness extended by Christ to the Church from the heavenly temple.  This sign is truly a celebration.

Each of these modes of signification, “Christ and the Penitent”, “The Church and the Penitent”, and “Christ and the Church” operate simultaneously in their own unique way to effect grace for the participants and those who witness the sacrament. It is helpful and important for all of us to witness these significations. We tend to only see them through the lens of private confession.  Thus we internalize the roles as personal experience.  The third mode of signification makes no sense in the context of private confession. As the ordained priest signifies Christ and the penitent as the baptismal priest signifies the Church there the public nature of this sacrament becomes clear and can be reapplied to the other two significations against our bias to private confession.  Without the third mode, the first two modes reiterate the mistaken assumption that God and the Church are judging the penitent, and the individual is the only problematic level.  If this were witnessed without the third mode, then the judgment would stay square on the particular individual penitent seeking the sacrament.  With the third mode, the witness can now, through the sign of the penitent, experience the Church as a sinful pilgrim church seeking redemption.  The witness's consciousness can then turn back onto self, and realize God’s mercy extended toward oneself.

One can read in the Catechism, 

“Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession.” There are profound reasons for this. Christ is at work in each of the sacraments. He personally addresses every sinner: "My son, your sins are forgiven.” He is the physician tending each one of the sick who need him to cure them. He raises them up and reintegrates them into fraternal communion. Personal confession is thus the form most expressive of reconciliation with God and with the Church.”

But “Individual” is not necessarily private.  Even the penitential rite said publicly at mass assumes an individual relationship to God.  Also, the reconciliation concerns the relation between the individual and God / the Church, but the effect obviously extends into the Church.  Hence signification is a key aspect of the reconciliation of the penitent.  The Sacrament of Reconciliation Glorifies God.  By glorification we mean, the sacramental matter (two human bodies, an ordained and a penitent) signify a mystery of the Church.  In this case, the mystery is the postlapsarian pattern of penitence and forgiveness, both on the individual and the communal level.  It is the mystery of God’s profound mercy.  It is a sign of God who states, “It is I, I, who wipe out, for my own sake, your offenses; your sins I remember no more.”  In private confession, the sign is witnessed primarily by the penitent actions, which lays the stress on our action and restoration.  With the third mode of signification’s necessity of public witness, we are reminded that it is God who is the actor, not us.  God does not require our actions.  Rather they are a responsive expression of celebration and joy.

 

Conclusion

In the first half of this treatise, we analyzed the damaging developments which lead to the present cultural context of the sacrament of confession. We went on to discuss the process and skills of active participation in the sacrament of reconciliation by the penitent.  The second half of the treatise sought to move reconciliation away from a simple mechanism of forgiveness for the individual to a sign of forgiveness for the witness of the Church.  We explored three modes of signification between the ordained priest and the penitent, “Christ and the Penitent '', “The Church and the Penitent '', and “Christ and the Church''.  The second half, especially through the third mode of signification, made an effort to understand the sacrament of reconciliation as a ritual that effects not only the individual penitent but also the Church as a whole.

When my child went to first confession, she was afraid.  When the bride of the wedding and I myself were ambushed with an “offer” of confession, celebration was far from our minds.  The sacraments are celebrations.  The healing sacraments are the hardest to understand in this way unless we believe that Christ has actually conquered.  But if we believe in Christ’s victory, then healing is not a process that is in any way contingent.  It is a given of God’s already granted mercy and love.  All we need to do is accept it and celebrate these divine attributes.